We’ve discussed the Iranian nuclear negotiations quite often here on this site. Sadly, the deal announced overnight represents the 1930s Chamberlain-Hitler moment for the 21st century. In the face of a clear threat — then, as now — we’re offering a conciliatory acquiescence to the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism.
I find it unbelievable that anyone can try to convince us this is a good thing. And that’s why I’ll be in New York City’s Times Square next week on July 22 speaking out against this farce. In all the reading I’ve done on these negotiations, I’ve not seen one mention by Secretary of State John Kerry about the four Americans — Jason Reznian, Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini,or Robert Levinson; in fact, there’ve been statements that any demands related to these four Americans would derail the negotiations. Well, just burn my britches, I’d never want to upset the Iranians over a silly little thing like holding Americans hostage.
Today, President Obama is touting success, and Iranians are euphoric. We’re being told that a game-changing event has occurred that only President Obama could’ve orchestrated. And that’s absolutely true: only President Barack Obama could’ve pursued such a horrible foreign policy. What’s changed about Iran’s behavior since 1979?
In the deal, Iran gets to keep centrifuges. They can restrict inspections of certain military facilities. What’s most disturbing is the lifting on the embargo and immediate relief of sanctions on Iran. This makes no sense, knowing that we’re dealing with a terrorist state. And of the P5+1 nations, it’s China and Russia who are supporting these conditions — wonder why? Imagine a collusion between Russia, China and Iran when it comes to energy security. There’ll be an incredible run on oil and natural gas. And if Russia were to supply the S-300 anti-aircraft weapon systems to Iran in exchange for oil shipments — then we have a new world axis developing. And China will be more than happy to accommodate and use those energy resources as well.
But don’t just take my word for it. As reported by Business Insider:
Resolution of the talks between the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany (the so-called P5+1) and Iran has apparently been delayed by a single issue: the lifting of a UN arms embargo implemented over the course of 2007 and 2008.Iran wants the embargo lifted, as do P-5+1 members Russia and China. According to Politico, the discussion in Vienna is over “how” to lift the embargo.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration would face domestic opposition to facilitating arms flows to a US-designated state sponsor of terrorism by lifting an embargo that’s arguably unrelated to the nuclear issue.The P5+1 has arguably made deeper concessions than the lifting of the arms embargo, which adds to the irony of a prospective deal meant to stem the spread of nuclear weapons hinging on a matter relating to conventional arms.
Today it appears it’s only a matter of time before the arms embargo is lifted along with sanctions. Talk of a so-called “snap back” option supposedly gives us some insurance in the event that Iran violates the deal. Please, give me a break; we know this won’t happen. My reading tells me any restoring of sanctions will require a committee, in which Iran has a say as well. So you must realize how abjectly absurd this is: Iran violates a condition and a committee meeting has to be called — of which Iran is a member — to discuss restoring economic sanctions. Is our moral clarity just that foggy?
And understand this deal will only slow down Iranian intent to develop a nuclear weapon capability, from as little as 10 years to a maximum of 15. Anyway, Iran’s been continuing to enrich uranium the whole time these negotiations have been ongoing. So, in the near term we could see increased Iranian support to the global Islamic jihad. In the long term, well, you all know what happens. And we can’t stop considering that the MAD theory of Mutually Assured Destruction is not valid when dealing with a religious theocracy bent upon fomenting an apocalyptic event to usher in the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi.
Of course, I can hear detractors saying, the Senate gets to vote up or down on this document. It’s not a treaty; it’s an executive agreement. It will require some 67 votes to block this negotiated agreement. That means if every Senate GOP member votes against this because of its failings, 12 Senate Democrats still need to join them. And what, folks, do you think is the possibility of 12 Democrats handing President Obama a defeat? Yes, I know, Nancy Pelosi surprised us all with causing Obama’s fast track trade authority to fail, at first. The 67 Senate votes are needed to override the Obama veto he promises.
Yes, there’s a reason why Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is on his balcony in Vienna laughing. I’m quite sure Adolf Hitler was doing the same thing while Neville Chamberlain ranted about a signed document from Herr Hitler guaranteeing there would be “peace in our times.” There are those who feel that, in the future, Obama’s legacy could be horribly damaged if things do indeed go sideways with Iran and in the Middle East. My hunch tells me that the American people, most of whom can’t remember last week’s news — unless it was about Bruce “I am a woman now” Jenner — will not remember what Obama did. Heck, most will probably blame Bush.
We’ve already seen the monumental statement from the White House by our modern-day Chamberlain. Perhaps the White House will even be illuminated in the Iranian flag colors tonight. Regardless, this a sad day. While I know the mindless lemmings will accuse me of fear-mongering and baseless doomsday predictions, I can only hope the American people — including our members of Congress — will wake up to this darkening scene before it’s too late.
And so did Sir Winston Churchill warn his nation.